The Tibetic languages and their classification (Preprint version, Trans-Himalayan Linguistics, De Gruyter, 2013) Nicolas Tournadre 1 1. Various meanings of “Tibetic” The term “Tibetic” has been used in the recent past by some authors in different ways to refer to various intermediate levels of classification within Tibeto-Burman (e.g. Matisoff 2003, Beckwith 2006, Lewis 2009, Blench 2011, de Haan 2011, DeLancey 2012, van Driem 2012, Noonan 2012, Chirkova in press inter alia ). 2 Depending on the author, “Tibetic” may be used to refer to a high level of sub-grouping more or less equivalent to “Bodic” or “Himalayish” or to a lower level of sub-grouping such as “Bodish” or an even lower level as an alternative form for “Tibetan languages/dialects”. “Bodic”, also referred to as “Tibeto-Himalayan” (Michailovsky 2011), groups together many Eastern Himalayan languages (such as the Kiranti languages), Western Himalayan languages (such as Kannauri, Almora), the so-called “Tibetan dialects” and “Bodish languages” (such as Tamang, Gurung, Bumthang, Tshangla etc.). “Bodic” is a “heterogenous and impressionistic” group (van Driem 2011: 31). “Bodish”, sometimes referred to as Tibeto-Kannauri, although less problematic is also not well-defined. It groups together the “Tibetan dialects”, Tamangic languages and some other languages such as Tshangla, Bumthang, Kurtoep, Bake 3 etc. The historical comparative methodology has so far not provided common innovations which would delimit clearly the Bodish subgroup. We can only agree with Matisoff’s (1989, 1990) note of caution to megalo- reconstructionists, or van Driem who states that it is safer “to discover the structure of the [Tibeto-Burman] family tree by working up from the firmer group of lower-level subgroups to the higher levels of superordinate subgroups” (2011: 37). Thus the use of “Tibetic” to replace already existing labels referring to subgroups which are not well- defined or to create new intermediate levels of classification without clear scientific criteria is not appropriate. 1 Aix-Marseille University and CNRS (Lacito). I would like to warmly thank Nathan W. Hill, Guillaume Jacques, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Randy LaPolla, Lauren Gawne and two anonymous reviewers, who read an earlier version of this article for their relevant remarks and suggestions. 2 The Sino-Tibetan macrofamily groups together the “Tibeto-Burman” and “Sinitic” languages. I think it is more convenient and appropriate to call this macrofamily Sino-Tibeto-Burman (STB), because it allows us to clearly include the Sinitic languages (whatever their status may be) when discussing general issues about the inner and outer classification of the Tibeto-Burman subgroup. However, in this paper, I will use the traditional taxon ‘Tibeto-Burman’ (TB). 3 Bake or brag-skad is a language spoken near the Basum lake (brag-gsum mtsho) in the Kongpo area, less than 500 kms from Lhasa. Because of its various meanings, the term “Tibetic” could become useless, unless it receives a precise definition and is used in a consistent way. 2. Definition of “Tibetic” The term “Tibetic” could, however, become a useful replacement for the notion of “Tibetan dialects”, which is not appropriate for various reasons. First, the notion of “Tibetan dialects” implies the existence of a single “Tibetan language”. However, the so-called “Tibetan dialects” refer in fact to various languages which do not allow mutual intelligibility. Until the last decades of the 20th century, many scholars would still classify the “Tibetan dialects” into three major groups: Khams 4 , Amdo, Ü-Tsang (thus taking into account only the “dialects” found in China) or into five major dialects: Central (Ü-Tsang), Southeastern (Khams), Western, Southern and Northeastern (Amdo) 5. In recent years, some authors such as Sun (2003a, 2006, 2007), Suzuki (2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2011a, 2011b), Zeisler (2011, 2012), Haller (2000, 2004, 2009), and Chirkova (2005, 2008b), to name a few, have provided new data on various languages and dialects of the area. These very significant contributions have resulted in new developments in the understanding of the Tibetan linguistic area and its diversity. Second, these “Tibetan dialects” are spoken not only by Tibetans per se but also by other ethnic groups such as Ladakhi, Balti, Lahuli, Sherpa, Bhutanese, Sikkimese Lhopo, etc. who do not consider themselves to be Tibetans 6. They do not call their language “Tibetan”. In a similar way, we do not talk of Latin Languages but of Romance languages and do not think of French, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan or Romanian as various dialects of Latin. 7 With the recent descriptions of many new “dialects” or “languages”, scholars of Tibetan linguistics have come to realize the incredible diversity of this linguistic area. The representation of a single language is no longer viable and we have to speak of a language family. In fact, the Tibetic linguistic family is comparable in size and diversity to the Romance or Germanic families. 4 I use here the orthograph Khams (which corresponds to the Wylie transliteration and not the pronunciation) because the word Kham also refers to a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Nepal and not related to Tibetan. 5 See Gesang Jumian [1964] 2002; Qu Aitang 1996. For a critical approach, see Sun 2003a or Tournadre 2005. 6 In many areas outside Tibet, such as the southern Himalayas, people speaking Tibetan-related languages sometimes call themselves ‘Bhutia’ (་ཊི bhoTi ) or ‘Lamas’ (་མ་ bla-ma) . 7 Nor would we think of English as a dialect of German just because German and English belong to the Germanic family. However the term “dialect” is sometimes used in a broader sense and means related varieties: so, for example, one of the definitions of “dialect” given in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) is “one of two or more cognate languages : French and Italian are Romance dialects ”. The term “Tibetic” is thus very convenient to denote a well-defined family of languages derived from Old Tibetan 8. The language called Old Tibetan was spoken at the time of the Tibetan empire (7th--9th centuries). According to Hill “Old Tibetan was originally spoken in the Yarlung valley, the cradle of the Tibetan empire” (2010: 111). While I tend to agree with this statement, it is hard to delimit the precise extension of the area where this language was spoken as well the degree of dialectal diversity at the time of the Empire. Much more controversial is Hill’s remark about the relationship between “Common Tibetan”, the ancestor of all the modern languages (see Section 4 below on Proto-Tibetic) and Old Tibetan: “Because Tibetan languages began to diverge from each other some centuries after Old Tibetan was committed to writing, the written system represents an état de langue (Old Tibetan) older than that reconstructible via the comparative method (Common Tibetan)” (2010: 112). Old Tibetan is very similar to the Classical Literary language which has preserved a very archaic orthography. And indeed, all the modern languages not only have regular reflexes of Classical Literary Tibetan (CLT), they also share a core vocabulary and grammar. The Tibetic language family belongs to a very small circle of language families throughout the world, derived from a common language which is identical or closely related to an old literary language 9. This small group includes for example the Romance languages with Latin, the Arabic languages (or “dialects”) with Classical Arabic, the Sinitic languages with Middle Chinese 10 , the modern Indic languages with Vedic Sanskrit 11 etc. There are only a few other examples of this specific relation between a proto-language and an old literary language. These language groups or families have a great significance not only for the theory of language evolution but also for the typology of sound changes, for morphology and syntax. It is particularly true for Tibetan since some of the attested sound changes have no equivalent in European languages. As Jacques (p.c.) rightly points out, “a general model about the evolution of languages has to take into consideration the specific features of the Tibetic languages. Their interest goes well beyond the Sino-Tibetan macrofamily”. 8 Although in some rare cases such as Baima or Khalong, a Qiangic substratum is a very probable hypothesis. 9 The ideas elaborated in this paragraph were suggested by Guillaume Jacques, whom I thank. 10 Except maybe the Min dialects which bear more archaic features. 11 A few languages have old literary relatives but these literary forms can not be considered as (nearly) identical to the proto-languages: this is for example the case of the Runic inscriptions in relation to Proto- Germanic, Avestan and Old Persian in relation to Proto-Iranian, or Old Church Slavonic in relation to Proto- Slavic. In the case of Iranian or Slavonic languages, the Old Literary languages are precious to reconstruct the Proto-languages but their reconstruction is achieved by the comparative method. 3. Identification of Tibetic languages The identification of a Tibetic language should thus be based on a number of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical criteria, which we will mention below. It is important to use such criteria also for the so-called “Bodish” languages, as well as the rGyalrongic and Qiangic languages languages spoken in eastern Tibet (China). These Tibeto-Burman subgroups have been heavily influenced by Classical Literary Tibetan and various spoken forms of Tibetan because of political, cultural and liturgical factors, and together with the southern Himalayan Bodish languages of Nepal, India and Bhutan they can be considered to belong to the “Tibetosphere” 12 , i.e. the sphere of influence of the Tibetan language, culture and religion. In the cases of some languages spoken in the Tibetosphere (such as Bake, Tshona Mönpa, Kheng, Kurtöp etc.), the existence of numerous loanwords from Tibetan may at first give the wrong impression that they are Tibetic languages.